June 20, 2012

The Big Divide

More than three years ago I had written a post urging Indian
film-critics to take up a responsibility. I had appealed to them to recognize
good cinema and ‘educate’ the public about that, because the audience will not
always be able to identify the merits of certain ‘difficult’ films. I don’t
care how many of the critics actually got to read that post of mine, or whether they consciously acted upon my appeal. But last week a film and the reactions
it triggered forced me to revisit that post. And finally, I’m pleased with the
Indian critics.

[Shanghai is] a serious motion picture that has a voice,
that makes you think, that makes a stunning impact. A must watch! – Taran
Adarsh

I couldn’t watch ‘Shanghai’ until on the 10th day
after its release. I hadn’t read any reviews or had conversation with those who
had watched it. But I was aware of the extreme mixed reactions it had
generated. The opinions were divided, greatly, between the critics and different
sections of the audience. The terms being associated with it were – ‘best Hindi
film of the year’ and ‘truly brave’ on one side, and ‘it’s a documentary’ and
‘don’t mention that rubbish film’ on the other. Today I realize it is one of
those truly well-made films that fail at the box-office. ‘Udaan’ (2010) had a
similar story. The critics loved it but it did not fare well commercially.
However, there were certain differences. One, ‘Udaan’ didn’t work because people
didn’t watch it. Those who did had a favourable reaction to it. I’m yet to meet
someone who hated the movie, unlike 'Shanghai'. Two, it did not lose money despite a poor
theatrical revenue. And three, generally speaking, the Critics are praising ‘Shanghai’
much more than they praised ‘Udaan’.

The pleasure of this film is in the details. – Anupama Chopra

I believe the biggest factor governing the reaction from the
audience is the accessibility of these films. ‘Udaan’ was more easily
accessible because of its inherent emotions – the audience could intimately relate
with the characters, could easily love or hate them. The characters of ‘Shanghai’
stay away from the emotional reach of the audience, and its drama affects our
intellect more than our feelings. Except ‘Khosla Ka Ghosla’ I have felt similar
‘coldness’ in the storytelling of all Dibakar Bannerjee films. I really
appreciate those films of his, they please me cerebrally; they even make me
laugh or smile or send a shiver down my spine, but they never make me choke. As
a result, despite admiring his films, I never really care for his characters
(except Khosla Ka Ghosla).

The most striking aspect of ‘Shanghai’ is its marvelous use
of sound, both ambient and otherwise, to build up dramatic tension. – Saibal Chatterjee

Now, I don’t mind this coldness in his films. But perhaps the
rest of the audience does. I enjoy the craft of his films so much that it is
pure entertainment for me. But that definitely cannot be an appealing factor for
others. Yet, I’m happy that the critics are pointing-out these ‘cinematic’
merits of the film. Technically speaking, this film is so strong that it will
keep inspiring me for re-watches only to learn more and more. And like most
good films, I know it will grow on me with re-watches.

If something’s missing from this film, it’s a sense of
suspense, the pressure-cooker urgency that this kind of ‘thriller’ needed… It’s
a good film from one of Hindi cinema’s most exciting film-makers… It’s just not
great. – Rajeev Masand.

Masand is a critic I always find myself agreeing with, more
than any other, and here I agree with him again. I don’t think ‘Shanghai’ is as
good as other critics are making it to be. But I don’t mind that at all. For a
film like this to do well, it is important that critics praise it a little more
than it deserves. This will attract all those who actually
decide about watching a movie by counting the number of stars in the reviews.
Films like these should be watched by the audience, for their taste-buds to
develop, for their ‘evolution’ into more mature and tolerant ‘consumers’, or
our cinema will remain stuck where it is.

… should ‘Shanghai’ be a commercial success [it] can change the
course of cinema in India. A hopeful, watershed moment, if there ever was one
in the midst of mediocrity… – Karan Anshuman

Unfortunately, this has not happened – the film has failed
commercially. And this time, I really feel disappointed in the Indian audience.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be. Perhaps the lack of its emotional impact, and its certain predictability, is
actually the cause for the lukewarm response. Whatever be the precise truth, it
is only with movies like these that we can hope to merge the divide between
auteur and genre, art-house and commercial, and ‘critically acclaimed’ and popular.
Thanks to Dibakar Bannerjee for making this film and the critics for their response that we can look
forward to that day when the big divide between Hindi and World Cinema will be
overcome. Only, it will not happen soon.

P.S. I started the 'Must Watch' recommendations in September 2010. Before that I had watched several movies that must feature in this list. But in order to save myself from the useless and predictable exercise of recommending all great movies, I decided to follow a simple eligibility criterion: The movies recommended here would be among those I watched or re-watched since September 2010. So please do not be surprised if 'Cinema Paradiso' or 'Apocalypse Now' (which are, in my opinion, definite Must Watch) do not feature in here. They will find a place in the list the day I re-watch them.